| Uncommon Descent

_{Robert Sheldon

September 24, 2010

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Hidden Light The Fibonacci post has generated a longer comment thread than anything else I’ve written. I was just digging a little dirt and must have hit a power line. The question I tried to address, was “is there any physics in Fibonacci, or is it just a mathematician’s curiosity?”

Here’s the physics that came back:

a) AJ Meyer has looked at the galactic rotation curves, and pointed out that “rigid-body” rotation which is observed, can be obtained by having a mass which increases with radius. Now since we can look at galaxies from the side, and they don’t get thicker with radius, it would seem that this increase in mass must be due to something else. Gallo argues that it could be dust, or non-glowing “dark” matter. Meyer argues that a logarithmic spiral distribution, like the arms of spiral galaxies, would contribute more mass at larger radii, exactly as required to match the rotation curves. In other words, there is no “missing matter” in spiral galaxies, but precisely the rotation curve for being a spiral galaxy. Of course, Meyer has no explanation for why the stars are arranged in Fibonacci spirals.

Comments

Ella,
I think that a basic self-replicating molecule is enough to start life going. And that slowly over millennia modifications create new and more complicated structures.
And once again you simply refuse to address the necessity of what must be explained prior to the onset of a self-replicating molecule capable of descent with modification. You did so no more than a few inches away (on your monitor) from where you were once again reminded that it is indeed necessary for your mechanism to have any effect at all. No one can make you address what you wish to ignore, but at the same time its hardly honest to then say you are open-minded, or to pretend that your conclusions are not the result of ideological blindness. Head...sand.
I just disagree with you. Lots of people do.
Given that you refuse to address the issue, it is hardly the case that you disagree. Disagreement would require engagement. In any case, given the former, your appeal to authority is less than compelling.Upright BiPed_{September 28, 2010
September
09
Sep
28
28
2010
08:01 AM
8
08
01
AM
PDT}

Gpuccio It is I who is now beginning to wonder how you cannot see my point. There are many things that emerge but I want to pursue what I think is the most important. You wrote: The definition of CSI is not circular, whatever you may say. The definition contains no reference to being designed. Take my definition of dFSCI, for example: a) A string of digital values b) Scarcely compressible c) Whose complexity is higher than 150 bits d) Which conveys the information for a well defined function… …is dFSCI… As you can see, nowhere in the definition I require that the string must be designed …and, as all strings of that kind we know of (except for biological strings, of which we are still debating the origin) are the product of design… …we infer that such a string is best explained by design. Nothing circular in that reasoning. So, please, acknowledge once and forever that your hints at circularity are wrong You may not include the word "design" in your definition but you do include: "complexity is higher than 150 bits" How do you calculate that complexity? By calculating the probability that it would arise through a known non-design process. i.e. one of the defining characteristics of FSCI is an outcome where there is no known non-design (necessary or chance) process which can generate it with a reasonable probability. You then argue that all cases of FCSI we either don't know the cause or we know them to be designed (by humans as it happens). Can you really not see the blatant circularity? Try it this way: Rephrase (c) above as "incredibly unlikely to arise through known necessity or chance" Then you can rephrase the definition of FSCI as ""incredibly unlikely to arise through known necessity or chance + conditions (a0, (b) and (d)" Now take your phrase: "all strings of that kind we know of (except for biological strings, of which we are still debating the origin) are the product of design" and substitute the definition of dFSCI we get: "all strings we know which are incredibly unlikely to arise through known necessity or chance (+ conditions (a0, (b) and (d)) (except for biological strings, of which we are still debating the origin) are the product of design" Well of course they are - you just established that the only alternatives are necessity, chance and design.markf_{September 28, 2010
September
09
Sep
28
28
2010
07:55 AM
7
07
55
AM
PDT}

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self_replicating_robot What scientific tools would we use to determine if this would be a designed thing or a naturally occuring thing?Collin_{September 28, 2010
September
09
Sep
28
28
2010
07:35 AM
7
07
35
AM
PDT}

Ellazimm, Yes, self-replication does make ID-er's job much more difficult. Paley's watch was not a self-replicating watch, so that analogy can only go so far. But what would you think about a self-replicating robot discovered on Pluto? What if there were thousands of them, diverse, and symbiotic? Would you rule out design a priori?Collin_{September 28, 2010
September
09
Sep
28
28
2010
07:22 AM
7
07
22
AM
PDT}

UBP: I'm I afraid I do first make that distinction and I look for outside evidence of possible designers and try to evaluate their capabilities. You've got to do that in archaeology. I think that a basic self-replicating molecule is enough to start life going. And that slowly over millennia modifications create new and more complicated structures. I just disagree with you. Lots of people do.ellazimm_{September 28, 2010
September
09
Sep
28
28
2010
07:02 AM
7
07
02
AM
PDT}

Ella, You are equivocating. You do not look at Stonehenge, nor a finding on the moon, and begin by classifying it among those things that can and cannot self-replicate. Indeed, you began by classifying it among those things that have functional specification (lintels, uprights, discreet corresponding indentations, an inference to purpose, etc). Also, regarding the self-replication of living systems, you continue to simply ignore the fact that without the system of heredity in place there is no descent with modification (no evolution, no mechanism of evolution, no power of the glory of evolution, amen). In other words, there is no place to bury your head. Your catch-all refutation is not even in effect until the what must be explained is already in existence. Abstracted information regarding the structure of the organism is recorded into the DNA molecule in a semiotic state (with symbols and rules for its translation). The translation of this recorded information leads directly to biofunction and is THE distinction between inanimate matter and living things - those things that can self-replicate and those that cannot. The fact that you simply refuse to address this necessity (opting instead to squint your eyes and wax on about the power of the evolutionary mechanisms) is all too convenient. If you were fair-minded you would simply agree (based upon observable evidence) that the inference to deisgn is indeed legitimate, even if you personally choose to look for new findings to invalidate its legitamacy.Upright BiPed_{September 28, 2010
September
09
Sep
28
28
2010
06:54 AM
6
06
54
AM
PDT}

gpuccio: I know that but I was just wondering if anyone had put any thought into to the requirements of a front-loading periodic genome introduction scenario. I'm not saying all ID proponents buy into that but some do and I'd like to find out a bit more about what they are proposing.ellazimm_{September 28, 2010
September
09
Sep
28
28
2010
06:54 AM
6
06
54
AM
PDT}

ellazimm: personally, I have never believed in front loading, so I cannot help you about that. But I think there should be some "front loading" supporter here. I hope they can give you some reference.gpuccio_{September 28, 2010
September
09
Sep
28
28
2010
06:53 AM
6
06
53
AM
PDT}

ellazimm (#125): Most (but not all) of basic protein evolution took place at OOL or in prokaryotes. At that level, there is no sexual reproduction, and everything is "identical twins" (except for new mutations). In higher beings, sexual reproduction and polymorphism of genetic traits bring about the diversity we see in races and in individuals.gpuccio_{September 28, 2010
September
09
Sep
28
28
2010
06:50 AM
6
06
50
AM
PDT}

Mark (final): You say: Well I am afraid it isn’t clear. Are you claiming that you can tell if a string is non-compressible simply by inspecting it? As I understand it that has been proven to be impossible. There is no general method for calculating the minimal Kolmogorov complexity of a given string (although it may be possible in some specific cases). So, for example, we cannot in general tell if there exists an algorithm capable of producing a given DNA string. This is even easier. First of all, it is well known that protein sequences are sacrcely compressible with any known method. That is more than enough for me. I would never require a mathemathical proof that no algorithm can generate protein sequences. Really, I have no need of that. We are in empirical sciences here. Not in mathematics, a field which I respect, but which I am happy to leave to others :) I am satisfied that my proteins are not compressible by any known algorithm. That means that design remains the best explanation, because no other explanation is in the game at present. If and when you find a compression algorithm for protein sequences, which can generate all of the functional sequences we know, through a simpler mechanism than just writing down those sequences, than we can discuss your findings. Bu I am not holding my breath.gpuccio_{September 28, 2010
September
09
Sep
28
28
2010
06:46 AM
6
06
46
AM
PDT}

Mark (continued): You say: All I am saying is that if you define CSI as a pattern which is not produced or made probable through a non-designed process then it is impossible to satisfy Vividbleau’s request by definition. Wrong. We define CSI as a pattern which is not the result of a necessity mechanism, and that is too unlikely to be generated through random processes. Please notice that, in pronciple, CSI could even not exist in the real world. But indeed it exists. Because we observe it every day. Where? In artifacts designed by humans. That's why we infer form our observations that artifacts exhibiting the formal properties of nour definition (which, again, do not include being designed) are always designed. You have done this mistake ither times. I have outlined it to you other times. The definition of CSI is not circular, whatever you may say. The definition contains no reference to being designed. Take my definition of dFSCI, for example: a) A string of digital values b) Scarcely compressible c) Whose complexity is higher than 150 bits d) Which conveys the information for a well defined function... ...is dFSCI... As you can see, nowhere in the definition I require that the string must be designed ...and, as all strings of that kind we know of (except for biological strings, of which we are still debating the origin) are the product of design... ...we infer that such a string is best explained by design. Nothing circular in that reasoning. So, please, acknowledge once and forever that your hints at circularity are wrong. In ID, design is inferred. It is an inference by analogy. CSI is the basis for the analogy. Everything is strictly empirical. The inference can be right of wrong, but it is not circular: it is empirical. So, when you say: scientific evidence that non-designed processes can explain apparent CSI you are wrong again. The correct form is: scientific evidence that non-designed processes can explain CSI, and that therefore CSI is not a marker of true design, but can be exhibited by apparent design. What is maybe true or maybe apparent is the desinged origin, not CSI. CSI ia a formal property which is in the ardtifact, or isn't in it. We in ID believe (empirically) that the presence of CSI is a marker which allows us to distinguish between true design and apparent design. But CSI is never apparent. We can see if it is there or not (provided that we can do the computations of the complexity). And I am sorry, but the magnet example is not fine, in no context it is fine. Necessity outputs have nothing to do with CSI. They can never be used to infer design. Next post is the last.gpuccio_{September 28, 2010
September
09
Sep
28
28
2010
06:39 AM
6
06
39
AM
PDT}

I mean my questions in posts 85 - 87 above that is. Something else just occurred to me: When a new genome is implemented not only would enough 'copies' of the genome have to be introduced to make a viable population but some variation would have to be present as well to avoid the problems of inbreeding. Otherwise it would be like identical twins having a child.ellazimm_{September 28, 2010
September
09
Sep
28
28
2010
06:29 AM
6
06
29
AM
PDT}

No one has responded to my questions about a front loading scenario. Does anyone know of a site or a paper which discussing that sort of thing? It's referred to here occasionally and I'd like to see what work has been done on it.ellazimm_{September 28, 2010
September
09
Sep
28
28
2010
06:22 AM
6
06
22
AM
PDT}

Mark (continued): 1) You say:
Functional specification requires a function. Do you define the function of haemoglobin to be: a) attach an oxygen atom b) transport oxygen to the other parts of the body c) provide other parts of the body with access to oxygen d) enable the respiratory system to work e) sustain life it does all of these and the probability of each is different.Who decides which is the correct function and on what basis?
This is a good question and it has a simple answer. First of all, one can define any function, But the computation of dFSCI will be relative to that function. That means that we can have different values for each function defined. That's perfectly fine. dFSC is a property relative to a function, and to the minimal system required to express that function. In each case, obviously, we have to compute the minimal complexity necessary for the function to be expressed, according to our definition of it. In general, it is good to choose the simplest definition and the simplest structure, because analysis of more complex sistems bears many further difficulties in computing (because one ahould take into account the complexity deriving from the interaction of simpler parts). That's why I never try to compute the dFSCI of a "system". I am happy with the model of dFSCI of single proteins, indeed of single protein domains, because those are the simplest functional units. That's why, in your example, I would definitely choose the answer: a) attach an oxygen atom which is the biochemical function of the protein itself, but adding some better description of the properties necessary for that function to be biochemically useful for the higher level necessioties of the system: the oxygen atom must be bound with a reversible link, in different conditions of pH and so on. That remanisn a definition of the biochemical function of the single protein, but it describes better what is required of the protein in a larger system. Anyway, my further analysis will go on from my definition, as already said. 2) You say: I hope you agree that the measure of dFCSI is the improbability of that configuration meeting the specification (once you have decided the specification). But improbability given what? The improbability of getting to human haemoglobin from the beta haemoglobin in an early mammal is very much higher than the probability of getting to it from the original single haemolglobin found in early lampreys and hagfish. This in turn is much higher than the probability of getting to it from the haemoglobin precursors found in plants. Where do you start when calculating this improbability and therefore the information content? This is even easier. If you have followed my recent postings on this subject, you should know that whne we compute dFSCI (like in the Durston paper) we have two options: a) We can compute the global dFSCI of a protein, or better of a protein family. Durston, for instance, computes it for 35 protein families (I am afraid hemoglobin is not in the group). Let's take for instance his value for Ribosomal S12: Length: 121 AAs Functional complexity: 359 Fits Number of sequences on which the computation has been made: 603 What is the meaning of the value of 359 Fits? It means that according to Durston's computations, if we had to generate the functional information of that protein in a completely random system, the probablities to get a functional result would be 1: 2^359. That is well beyond my personal threshold for biological systems, which is of 150 bits. Now, what does it mean "generate the functional information of that protein in a completely random system"? I does not mean, obviously, to pass from one form of Ribosomal S12 in one species to that in another species. Which is the example you suggest for hemoglobin. No. In Durston's computation, all the sequences of protein S12 in different species are considered as one family. It is very easy to pass from one to another, and the essential function in preserved (with possible minor tweakings form species to species). That is exactly what microevolution can do (and probably does do): To preserve an existing function by negative selection, and to change the primary sequence inside a functional island by neutral mutations. That's what the "big bang" theory of proteins, which I often quote, is all about. But the ID problem is all another matter: the ID problem is: how was the first fuinctional S12 protein generated? IOWs, how was the essential protein domain generated? Now, as we know that there are in the proteome about 1000 - 6000 individual and unrelated protein domain superfamilies (according to how you do the grouping), it is obvious that if you hypothesize that they did not come out of scratch in a random way (in which case the Durston computation applies perfectly), than each of them must have come out of some unrelated different sequence, through a random walk. And, in that case, the Durston computation applies just the same. because a random walk starting from a completely unrelated sequence is indeed a random search. b) We can compute the dFSCI of a transition. So, let's imagine that you can deconstruct the walk form A to B (where B is our first S12, and A is some pre-existing, unrelated protein domain) in a series of steps, let's say A1, A2, An. Where each intermediate implies a survival advantage, and therefore can be "seen" by NS. If you could do that (which you can't), then you would be right to affirm that the transition does not any more imply 369 Fits, because a necessity mechanism (NS) intervenes in each of the n points. That's true. Then, we can simply compute the dFSCI implied in each of the n-1 transitions, and sum those values. That is perfectly possible. After you have given the explicit pathway of transitions and intermediates which your model refers to. Unfortunately, I am not aware of any of those detailed models. So, for the moment, we can be happy with computing the dFSCI of a protein family and, in the complete absence of any model which can explain its origin, and in good awareness that a purely random model could never originate it, maintain design as the best hypothesis. More on next post-gpuccio_{September 28, 2010
September
09
Sep
28
28
2010
06:20 AM
6
06
20
AM
PDT}

Collin and UBP: There is a difference between inferring design in the case of Stonehenge and DNA: Stonehenge is inanimate, it can not reproduce with modifications. And, at least in the case of the Stonehenge in England, we know from other evidence that there were intelligent beings around at the time capable of such a construction. Design inference must take into account the material being studied. Inanimate objects are not capable of that kind of self-assembly and alignment. Living systems which are capable of common descent with modifications are a completely different matter. Given the right selection pressure living systems can be groomed and directed to fill a particular niche based on the external (to the living system) input. I know you know that without me having to repeat it. And I'm sure you make that same kind of inference when you find a mound of dirt, a shovel, a hole in the vegetable garden and your child is no where to be found. Inanimate objects don't arrange themselves like that. If you're going to make an inference comparison then compare like to like.ellazimm_{September 28, 2010
September
09
Sep
28
28
2010
06:08 AM
6
06
08
AM
PDT}

Mark (#119 120): Let's start: 1) I am not dismissing Dembski's paper. I simply do not need it for my discussion. And I don't remember that I have ever found, for instance here at UD, anyone who was relying on the definition in that particular paper to discuss CSI and ID. So, it seems that it is not only me that do no find particularly necessary that paper. 2) You say tha Dembski is "ID’s leading theoretician on CSI". That's true. But I would say that most would agree on that because of his previous work, and not so much that paper. And his more recent work, extremely good, is about debunking evolutionary algorithms. I am not aware that he has followed up much on that paper, which IMO remains rather isolated. 3) And, anyway, plurality of thought is a richness in any field. As I have said many times, ID is not a party, and Dembski is not our leader. That makes his work even more important, because its influence is based on simple depth and relevance, and not on authority. 4) That said, more to the substance. You say: Other different definitions of information from other ID supporters. Your definition may seem clear to you but remember those of us outside the ID movement are exposed to all sorts of other examples and sources. Dembski’s paper is one case, but for example Stonehenge is being held up as a prime example of information on this very thread. It is neither digital nor functionally specified. It is almost certainly compressible in the sense that you could describe its salient characteristics in a few sentences. First of all, make a simple exercise: forget for a moment other definitions, and just see if my definition is clear for you too. We can, after all, evaluate a definition for itself, without being conditioned by what others say. Regarding Stonehenge at similar: it should be clear that my definition of dFSCI is not an alternative definition of CSI, but only a subset of it. Stonehenge can well be an example of analogic CSI, and everybody is free to discuss it. I don't discuss analogic CSI for two reasons: a) It is much more difficult to compute the complexity b) Basic biological information, which is what I am interested in, is in digital form But that does not mean that analogic CSI does not exist. Anybody can discuss examples of analogic CSI, only I suppose that it will be difficult to agree on a measurement of the complexity. So, Stonehenge and other analogic examples need not confound the poor non IDist who is for the first time approaching the concept of CSI. For simplicity, I would suggest that in the beginning he may stick to dFSCI to better understand what is discussed. And I really don't know how much the information in Stonehenge is "compressible". That would require a long discussion, and frankly, for the above reasons, I am not interested in it. The rest in next post.gpuccio_{September 28, 2010
September
09
Sep
28
28
2010
05:38 AM
5
05
38
AM
PDT}

Gpuccio part 2 The second point. Vividbleau asked for scientific evidence that natural processes can explain CSI (by "explain" I assume he means "bring about"). Let us avoid an unnecessary debate about natural and supernatural by modifying that to "evidence that non-designed processes can explain CSI". All I am saying is that if you define CSI as a pattern which is not produced or made probable through a non-designed process then it is impossible to satisfy Vividbleau's request by definition. Of course design is required to produce CSI - because part of the definition of CSI is that it is not produced by any other method. Perhaps Vividbleau should have expressed his challenge as "scientific evidence that non-designed processes can explain apparent CSI". In which case I think the magnet example is just fine (I am not talking about functional information at this point). You say "CSI is about those patterns of information which are not explained (nor explainable) by an explicit, simple necessity mechanism (IOWs, are not compressible in the Kolmogorov sense, ot if you want cannot be generated by an algorithm, at least not an algorithm which is significantly less complex than the output itself). Is that clear?" Well I am afraid it isn't clear. Are you claiming that you can tell if a string is non-compressible simply by inspecting it? As I understand it that has been proven to be impossible. There is no general method for calculating the minimal Kolmogorov complexity of a given string (although it may be possible in some specific cases). So, for example, we cannot in general tell if there exists an algorithm capable of producing a given DNA string.markf_{September 28, 2010
September
09
Sep
28
28
2010
04:55 AM
4
04
55
AM
PDT}

Gpuccio I will answer the two elements in two comments. First the clarity (or not) of the ID definition of information. I am surprised how easily you dismiss Dembski's paper. To reiterate - he is ID's leading theoretician on CSI, he explicitly says this definition supersedes all previous definitions, it explicitly contradicts your definition in at least one part. However, this is not the only source of confusion in this concept which you find so simple. The confusion is of two sorts. 1) Other different definitions of information from other ID supporters. Your definition may seem clear to you but remember those of us outside the ID movement are exposed to all sorts of other examples and sources. Dembski's paper is one case, but for example Stonehenge is being held up as a prime example of information on this very thread. It is neither digital nor functionally specified. It is almost certainly compressible in the sense that you could describe its salient characteristics in a few sentences. 2) Ambiguities in your own definition. Two examples: * Functional specification requires a function. Do you define the function of haemoglobin to be: a) attach an oxygen atom b) transport oxygen to the other parts of the body c) provide other parts of the body with access to oxygen d) enable the respiratory system to work e) sustain life it does all of these and the probability of each is different.Who decides which is the correct function and on what basis? * I hope you agree that the measure of dFCSI is the improbability of that configuration meeting the specification (once you have decided the specification). But improbability given what? The improbability of getting to human haemoglobin from the beta haemoglobin in an early mammal is very much higher than the probability of getting to it from the original single haemolglobin found in early lampreys and hagfish. This in turn is much higher than the probability of getting to it from the haemoglobin precursors found in plants. Where do you start when calculating this improbability and therefore the information content?markf_{September 28, 2010
September
09
Sep
28
28
2010
04:16 AM
4
04
16
AM
PDT}

Ella,
The lintels sit on bumps carved into the tops of the uprights; there are corresponding indentations ...
So you look to the artifact itself for evidence of its origin. You do so because doing so is valid. Millions of ID proponents agree with you on that point.
If such a thing was found on the moon then I would assume that some kind of being had been there in the past.
Then you have appropriately made a design inference based upon the artifact itself without regard to knowledge of designer - neither its character, nor even its existence. In the course of doing so, you also fully contradict any number of your repetitive exchanges on this forum:
What proof is there that, say, 500 million years ago there was an intelligent agent around aside from gaps in the fossil record? Intelligent agents can’t act if they aren’t there.
Your typical return is a recurrent theme among ideologues. It is to dutifully wave your hands at the evidence, then make effervescent statements regarding impossibilities, and probabilities, and the ever-present limits to knowledge. It is to place your head deeply in the sand and say that lintels and uprights can carve themselves in such a fashion, and just because we don't know it happened is not to say that we can't figure it out some day.
[Physics cannot explain the presence of meaningful information being instantiated into matter] Physics not being able to answer now does not mean it won’t be able to later. Our limited understanding of the rules does not imply impossibility.
And the beat goes on...Upright BiPed_{September 28, 2010
September
09
Sep
28
28
2010
01:23 AM
1
01
23
AM
PDT}

Ellazimm, There are also corresponding indentations for DNA in ribosomes. In fact, the fittings in cells are much more exact than Stonehenge or anything else in the universe that I am aware of. DNA is clearly used as a blueprint. Just as Stonehenge helped give calendar-type information, DNA gives proteins regulatory information. I'm certainly not saying that Stonehenge was not designed. But I am saying that all of those things you mention rightly lead you to a design inference. Since the uprights fit nicely into the lintel, it is more likely to be designed. What about those numerous things in biology that fit just perfectly? Or cosmology?Collin_{September 28, 2010
September
09
Sep
28
28
2010
01:02 AM
1
01
02
AM
PDT}

Mark: Very simply, it seems that, if you have no arguments, your argument becomes that Dembski has written a single paper where he seems to say something different for what all ID says (including all contributions by Dembski to ID). I will not judge that specific paper from Dembski (it is very theoretical, and that is not my field), but I really think that here the only confused person is you. The concept of functional information is simple and old. Dembski has not created it. Biological information is functionally specified. There is no doubt about that. It is not compressible, and it cannot be generated by a necessity mechanism. It is CSI, according to Dembski's explanatory filter. It is dFSCI, according to my definition, and, what is more important, according to the concept of functional information which is routinely used by all those who have been intelligent enough to understand that there is a problem of functional information in biology, both in the ID field and in the darwinian field (how can you explain that there are many papers and experiments in the darwinian field which are desperately trying to show that the problem of functional information can be solved, of in your opinion there i no such problem? ). Let's go to your, equally confused, argument about necessity. You say: "Now you ell me that it no longer counts as CSI if we find a natural cause that explains it too well. It no longer counts as CSI if a natural cause which totally explains it is found!" Here you are really cheating! When did I say such a thing? I said that your example is not CSI because it is the result of a well known necessity mechanism, which is explicitly an exclusion criteria in Dembski's explanatory filter and in my definition. You are conflating the concept of "known necessity mechanism" with that of "natural cause"! That is neither logical nor fair. I don't know why you mess with simple things. CSI is about those patterns of information which are not explained (nor explainable) by an explicit, simple necessity mechanism (IOWs, are not compressible in the Kolmogorov sense, ot if you want cannot be generated by an alogtithm, at least not an algorithm which is significantly less complex than the output itself). Is that clear? And which, at the same time, convey a functional information (or any other kind of specification, but in biology the only important one is the functional). Is that clear? And which, at the same time, are too complex to come out through a random mechanism. Is that clear? A random mechanism is a natural cause, which can give outputs even if no describable necessity mechanism exists. That's why we have to consider if the complexity of our functional output allows a random explanation. And finally, a designer is a natural cause. Only a different one. If you think that the designer is "supernatural" (a word I don't love any way), then the whole process of design will have a "supernatural" origin, but design in itself is perfectly natural, because it is daily observed in nature: we daily observe conscious intelligent beings projecting their conscious representations so that they give form to pseudo random, non compressible, and highly complex strings. That's what you and I are doing on this blog.gpuccio_{September 28, 2010
September
09
Sep
28
28
2010
12:57 AM
12
12
57
AM
PDT}

UBP: Stonehenge is made of uprights and lintels. The lintels sit on bumps carved into the tops of the uprights; there are corresponding indentations on the underside of the lintels. At a similar site, Avebury, excavations revealed tools used in the construction. The layout of Stonehenge strongly suggests it was used as a sort of calendar/ritual site. There are lots of good resources on Stonehenge if you really want to know about it. The Aubrey holes are possible temporary alignment tools and/or an early stage of construction. If such a thing was found on the moon then I would assume that some kind of being had been there in the past. That reminds me of the 2001 scenario.ellazimm_{September 28, 2010
September
09
Sep
28
28
2010
12:10 AM
12
12
10
AM
PDT}

#97 Gpuccio In the explanatory filter, it is clearly stated that necessity mechanisms must be ruled out to recognize CSI. So, your example is definitely not an example of CSI. Remember VB's request. For scientific evidence that natural causes can explain CSI. Now you ell me that it no longer counts as CSI if we find a natural cause that explains it too well. It no longer counts as CSI if a natural cause which totally explains it is found! If I provide a natural cause that makes the outcome probable but not certain, then is that OK? Or is that also ruled out by definition? I think the magnet example fulfils this. The magnet greatly increases the chances of a filing falling into the pattern but roughnesses in the surface and other chance interference will mean that a very few filings do not match the pattern (try it). If that also prevents it being CSI then Vivid's request becomes: show me a natural cause for a phenomenon that has no known natural cause! This is a problem at the heart of the whole CSI etc argument. It defines information in terms of lack of natural cause or weakness of natural cause and then says "see there is no plausible natural cause for information". On dFSCI vs CSI You may prefer functional specification to Dembski's definition - but nevertheless your initial definition was in direct contradiction (not a subset of) his most recent definition of CSI (a definition which he clearly says supersedes all previous definitions and which, as far as I know, he has not retracted or modified in 5 years). You quite clearly said CSI must have low compressibility. He quite clearly says CSI must have high compressibility. Are you surprised that intelligent people are confused about the concept when the leading figures are giving contradictory definitions? If William Dembski is confused about your definition what hope have the rest of us got?markf_{September 27, 2010
September
09
Sep
27
27
2010
03:06 PM
3
03
06
PM
PDT}

Ella, "The source of the stone has been determined. The construction techniques have been fairly well explored." And prior to those conclusions, exactly how much time was spent wondering if it all came about by weather and wind? If no time was spent on such a hypothesis, then what were the characteristics of the artifact itself which led to that result? Are there any at all? And if Stonehenge had been found on the backside of the moon, what would we say then? Now clearly, you are a materialist who does not intend in any way to allow their thinking to be provoked by such questions, you made that clear on your maiden voyage here some time ago. But still, you are a good sport, and I must still ask. Feel free to ignore both me and my question.Upright BiPed_{September 27, 2010
September
09
Sep
27
27
2010
02:31 PM
2
02
31
PM
PDT}

equinoxe: I think your analogy has merit, and I say that as someone who works in education in the UK and previously did in the US. I am continuously suspicious and skeptical of new educational paradigms; most of them are not backed up by significant research. Many are driven by governments' need to prove there are doing something. But your comparison is apt. I think lots of people on both sides of the evolution/ID debate are driven by what they are told. And it's fair for people to query me about that. It's a perfectly legitimate concern. I'm not sure exactly how far the analogy works towards explaining evolution but it does seem useful. I think the information contained in the genome of any living being shapes it's development to enable it to better exploit a given ecological niche. The 'information' is the self-replicating molecule's experiments in various coping strategies. The strategies that work take precedence. Many try, most fail, the winners make more winners. I came to evolution on my own without coercion or value judgements. I can't speak for anyone else. I can see that, for the religious faithful, it does feel like a concentrated and targeted attack on their beliefs. I hope they can find some accomodation. But it is up to the faithful to find their own way through. Anyway, it's almost 10:30pm here and I'm tired. I'd still like to hear any answers anyone has to my questions about how and why new genomes might have been introduced. I think those questions are really fascinating. But I'll have to catch up tomorrow sometime. I'm going to bed!! Night all! I hope I haven't disappointed too much. Or offended. Thanks for the time and the place. It matters.ellazimm_{September 27, 2010
September
09
Sep
27
27
2010
02:23 PM
2
02
23
PM
PDT}

Hello Collin, "Part of my reasoning is that it seems unlikely that enough beneficial mutations could happen to create life as we know it, especially features like mechanisms that reduce the number and heritability of mutations." It is probably worth considering that until a semiotic system was in place to facilitate the abstracted information of the cell (such as the chemical symbols A, C, G, and T/U we find today) then there was no heridity at all, and therefore no variation to that heredity.Upright BiPed_{September 27, 2010
September
09
Sep
27
27
2010
02:18 PM
2
02
18
PM
PDT}

[Sorry! the above quote was from Collin #107.]equinoxe_{September 27, 2010
September
09
Sep
27
27
2010
02:09 PM
2
02
09
PM
PDT}

Part of my reasoning is that it seems unlikely that enough beneficial mutations could happen to create life as we know it, especially features like mechanisms that reduce the number and heritability of mutations.
Yes, unlikely. But it is also possible that the environment makes them likely. But this does nothing to reduce my overall surprise, as an environment that selects for something extremely unlikely demands an explanation equal to that of its inhabitants. (See #105 above.) This is why I don't feel particularly threatened by science which attempts to account for the formation of what, on a first blush, appear to be extremely unlikely physical structures.equinoxe_{September 27, 2010
September
09
Sep
27
27
2010
02:08 PM
2
02
08
PM
PDT}

Collin: there are plenty of good books discussing Stonehenge. I'm not an expert but I'm sure you can find a good discussion of the evidence if you spend some time. The source of the stone has been determined. The construction techniques have been fairly well explored. Excavation around the site (and other similar sites) have shown the tools used in the construction. There are still lots of unknowns but there is no evidence that Stonehenge was not constructed by anyone or anything other than very clever human beings about 5000 years ago. SETI is fairly cheap and gets lots of funding by private individuals. I think there is value in speculation. Why not spend some time and effort to check it out? I don't stay awake at night waiting for results though.ellazimm_{September 27, 2010
September
09
Sep
27
27
2010
02:02 PM
2
02
02
PM
PDT}

For me, any complex mechanical thing that "has appearance of design" (Richard Dawkins' words) carries a presumption that it was designed. In my mind, evolutionists have the burden to prove that the protein machines in the cell and the DNA code are not designed. I think they have made a spectacular effort, but I think they have failed. Part of my reasoning is that it seems unlikely that enough beneficial mutations could happen to create life as we know it, especially features like mechanisms that reduce the number and heritability of mutations. In that way, I am persuaded by John Stanford's Genetric Entropy argument.Collin_{September 27, 2010
September
09
Sep
27
27
2010
01:53 PM
1
01
53
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 … 7 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply